Growth Management Cont d. Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, 285 N.E. 2d (N.Y. 1972) p. 619

Transcription

1 Growth Management Cont d Infrastructure Controls and Concurrency Requirements Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo Urban Growth Boundaries and Sprawl 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo, 285 N.E. 2d (N.Y. 1972) p. 619 Infrastructure Controls and Concurrency Requirements Comprehensive Plan Concurrency Special Permit Point System 1

2 Ramapo Cont d Special Permit Point System The subdivision of land for residential purposes was designated a special use for which a special use permit was required. No special permit could be issued unless the proposed residential development accumulated 15 development points, to be computed on a sliding scale of values assigned to specific improvements under the statute. 2

3 Ramapo Cont d 1. Sewers Special Permit Point System (a) Public sewers available (b) Package sewer plants (c) County-approved septic system (d) All others 5 points 3 points 3 points 0 points Ramapo Cont d Special Permit Point System 2. Drainage Percentage of Required Drainage Capacity Available (a) 100% or more (b) 90% to 99.9% (c) 80% to 89.9% (d) 65% to 79.9% (e) 50% to 64.9% (f) Less than 50% 5 points 4 points 3 points 2 points 1 point 0 points 3

4 Ramapo Cont d Special Permit Point System 3. Improved Public Park or Recreation Facility Including Public School Site (a) Within ¼ mile (b) Within ½ mile (c) Within 1 mile (d) Further than 1 mile 5 points 3 points 1 point 0 points Ramapo Cont d Special Permit Point System 4. State, County, or Town Major, Secondary, or Collector Roads, Improved with Curbs and Sidewalks (a) Direct Access (b) Within ½ miles (c) Within 1 mile (d) Further than 1 mile 5 points 3 points 1 point 0 points 4

5 Ramapo Cont d Special Permit Point System 5. Firehouses (a) Within 1 mile (b) Within 2 miles (c) Further than 2 miles 3 points 1 point 0 points Ramapo Cont d Savings and Remedial Provisions As-of-Right Use Reduction of Tax Assessments Acceleration Vested Rights 5

6 Ramapo Cont d Savings and Remedial Provisions Cont d Hardship Variance Affordable Housing Program Village Incorporation Law Urban Growth Boundaries 6

7 1000 Friends of Oregon v. Wasco County Court, 703 P. 2d 207 (Or. 1985), p. 629 Urban Growth Boundaries Statewide Land Use Planning Goals LCDC Acknowledgement Plan Amendments 1000 Friends of Oregon Cont d Goal 14 The Urbanization Goal Conversion from rural land to urban land Goal 2 - goal exceptions Wasco County, OR Portland, OR 7

8 1000 Friends of Oregon Cont d Other Issues Pre-incorporation v. postincorporation Compatibility Mere technical distinction or support for democratic will? Wasco County, OR 1000 Friends of Oregon Cont d 1983 Festival at Rajneeshpuram 8

9 1000 Friends of Oregon Cont d Mounted at the base of the flagpole at the Antelope, Oregon post office Growth Management: Wise public policy or unwise interference with the market? Critiques Escalation of costs Potential exclusionary devices Jobs-housing imbalance Leapfrogging Abuse of relief valves Government coercion 9

10 Growth Management: Wise public policy or unwise interference with the market? Predictability Preservation Defenses Reduced sprawl and traffic congestion Resources re-directed Houses originally under-priced Other Contributors to Sprawl Economic prosperity Desire for more space Localized thirst for tax dollars Federally funded highways 10

11 Sprawl by the Numbers 21. San Antonio Austin El Paso McAllen-Edinburg-Mission Corpus Christi Securing a Sufficient Housing Supply Exclusionary Zoning Judicial Invalidation (Mount Laurel I) Statutory Mandates Against Exclusionary Zoning (BIA of San Diego) Inclusionary Zoning (Mount Laurel II) next class 11

12 Mount Laurel and Vicinity Southern Burlington County N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel (Mount Laurel I), 336 A.2d. 713 (N.J. 1975), p. 652 Exclusionary Devices Types of housing Income classes Over-zoning for industrial use 12

13 Mount Laurel I Cont d Regional Fair Share Commutershed County and regional planning agencies Superseding reason Mount Laurel I Cont d Why Mount Laurel? Test case Location Archetypical developing community 13

14 Building Industry Association of San Diego v. City of Oceanside, 33 Cal. Rptr. 2d 137 (Ct. App. 1995), p. 660 Residential Development Control System Proposition A (1987) Annual allotment Inconsistencies General Plan Elements State Law 14